Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.

Saturday, 17 December 2016

There are many facts and successive events that can be taken into consideration to draw the direction which will rule the developments in the world and the region and which will form a framework for a context not just an accumulation of facts. But it is enough to see the striking of them and which form a qualitative paradox comparing with what was known as axioms five years ago.

In 2012 the two candidates for the US presidency Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have competed, Obama for the second term and Romney as a candidate of the Republican Party, as the two candidates for the French presidency Nicolas Sarkozy for the second term and the current President Francois Hollande. One of the items of the competitive presidential speech in the two cases is who will be able to topple the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and who will present the important support for the militants of the groups which strive to topple him. In 2016 Donald Trump won the US presidency versus the competitive candidate Hillary Clinton. The difference between the two speeches is that Clinton’s adoption of the choice of the continuation of the war against the Syrian President and the support of the armed opponent groups, and Donald’s adoption of a speech that calls for the priority of the war on terrorism without seeing the justification to topple the Syrian President, however he calls to cooperate with him, while in France Francois Fillon is preparing himself for the presidential competition as a representative of the center-right after his winning against his rival Alain Juppe. The competitive speech of Juppe is his adoption of the escalation against the Syrian President while Francois Fillon is calling to cooperate with him. Fillon will compete his candidate of the extreme-right Marine Le Pen whose her speech is similar to Fillon’s speech regarding.

In 2014 Hezbollah announced its support for the nomination of the General Michael Aoun for the presidency. According to the majority of the Lebanese interior and the Arab and non-Arab world that nomination was not realistic and closer to be negotiated, in exchange of any other nomination for a competitor who represents the political color which opposes Hezbollah, towards a consensus candidate as the one who has been already the solution in the presidential term of the General Michael Suleiman. After two years and a half the opponents of Hezbollah have repositioned at its semi impossible nomination, and the General Michael Aoun has been elected as the President of the Lebanese Republic.

Four years ago the Turkish President Recep Erdogan has the decisive word militarily and politically in the northern of Syria, Aleppo was one of the areas which were under his guardianship. Today the Syrian army and its allies are making a progress in the neighborhoods of Aleppo, but the Turkish President is unable to do anything.

Realizing the international scene of Syria for five years ago was waiting for a statement by the US Secretary of State, it was enough to accept cease-fire for an apparent goal, which was to ensure the opportunity for the militants to assemble their ranks as has happened in Homs on the days of the mediation of Kofi Anan as UN envoy, or in Aleppo on the days of the mediation of Al Akhdar Al Ibrahim, for exerting pressure on Syria by its allies at their forefront Russia in order not to provoke the Americans despite knowing the cost which will be paid by Syria for allowing the American trap. Today the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is taking over this provocation against the Americans personally, he says that Washington is cooperated in reaching for a solution that ensures cease-fire in Aleppo, its title is the exit of all the militants, and the one who left among them will be treated as a terrorist, and that Moscow will support the Syrian army to get rid of him by force.

Five years ago the eyes of the whole world were toward the arrival of the US troops to be positioned in Syria, and the Arab approach to the Security Council was by a resolution from the League of the Arab countries to grant this reposition an Arab cover. Today Russia is repositioning in Syria and its aircrafts are hovering in the Syrian airspaces, they are progressing as an active partner in the war of defending for Syria, after Washington has come with its fleets and it regressed as it came.

Two years ago, Saudi Arabia has put its importance to wage the war price to lower the price of oil, flooding the market with millions of surplus barrels of the customers’ need, and its bet is on bankrupting Russia and Iran. However many weeks ago it was appealing for the Russian Iranian consensus on an understanding that allows reducing the production that it would bear its burdens, and ensures for Iran an important share in the market hoping to improve the price after the outcome of its behavior was the bankruptcy along with Russian Iranian steadfastness in politics and economy.

There are many signs that contribute in drawing a steady track in the world and the region, its title is the change of the decision’s balances and the reality of the slogans which were raised by forces that were seen as adventurers. The stay of the President Al-Assad is an adventure, the arrival of the General Aoun to presidency is an adventure, the control of Iran of the oil market is an adventure, and the Russian control of the international military equation in the Middle East starting from Syria is an adventure, but the adventurers seem more realistic than those who met on the call and the pledge of the departure of the President Al-Assad, and they started that successively, they continue leaving but Al-Assad remains.

vAway from the game of scoring points in the political debates between who is standing in the axis of the resistance especially with the Syrian country and Hezbollah as a leader of the resistance, and who is standing in the other axis which starts from Washington and does not end with Al-Qaeda organization passing by Riyadh, Ankara, Paris, and Tel Aviv, although this party is acting hostilely against Damascus and the Southern suburb. The two Israeli processes against Syria over the days open a systematic obligatory discussion that imposes clarifying the dimensions, meanings, goals, and the conclusions, and explaining the meaning of the response, its right, and its position in the deterrence equations and the track which is wanted by the Syrian country along with the resistance regarding the new engagements rules which are drawn by the announced positions of responding to any aggression.

There are three simultaneous dimensions in the processes that is not possible to separate, they are coinciding with the clear deterrent speech of the Syrian country and the resistance against every Israeli aggression, especially against every air strikes since the raids which targeted the Syrian sites in Al Quneitra and which are followed by launching Syrian ground-air missiles against Israeli aircrafts in the Syrian airspaces, that have obliged them to leave the airspaces. The attacks in their direct meaning are a clear message of challenge at least politically and in media for the announced position of Syria and the resistance and a clear attempt for embarrassment and provocation.

The second dimension of these attacks does not stem from the field but from its moral coincidence with the ongoing military shifts in Aleppo and other Syrian areas in favor of the Syrian army and the resistance, they send dual message. The first part is moral, it shows the Israeli concern of what is going on, and says that the Syrian victories on the armed groups which were supported by Israel publicly and on which they depend to sabotage and to overthrow Syria must not be understood by the Syrian leadership and the resistance as a deterrence against Israel and an impressing of its military interferences and interventions. Second, these attacks grant the militants a moral even small or ineffective dose that Israel was not ready to involve in predicative direct support that changes the course of battle, but it says to them that the Syrian country and its allies are not free and do not dominate on the regional military scene, moreover Israel is still strong, capable, and it could be depended on its strength if that was as a source of advantage in the desperate confrontations which are waged by the armed groups, but in depth the processes remain a message to Syria and the resistance about the phase after the victory on the armed groups.

The third dimension is drawn by the details of the processes, and the content of the professional intelligence message; they did not target neither specific sites nor gatherings, nor equipment, nor convoys, nor operational rooms, this is not due to the absence of the ability to identify painful sites, but the desire to neutralize the message away from any dimension of that kind, because this may lead to response that makes the strikes lose their mission. So this does not aim to lead to losses or targeting sites or weapons which were afflicted by the aggression, but to send a message that has another goal, and thus making the response according to the intended content. The second detail is that the two aggressions have been carried out by two different means, one by airstrike and the other one by surface –to – surface missiles. In case of the airstrike the Israeli has intended to target from outside the Syrian airspaces and to be committed not to violate them which means that the two successive aggressions have not intended to target specific objectives, but they sent a message that Israel is determined to continue drawing new engagement rules in the phase of the Russian deployment in Syria and its implications and the stage of the Syrian victory on the armed groups, so that allows it to target objectives in Syria, but it takes into consideration the Syrian deterrent message which is related to the stage after the entry of network of S300 missiles, and the Russian cover of the Syrian airspaces, that imposes the prevention of violating the Syrian airspaces, however these strikes are capable of compensating the lack and the imbalance by adopting two means they are surface- to -surface missiles and the raids from outside the Syrian airspace. The third detail is that the geographical range of the movement of these two alternatives to compensate the prevention of entering the Syrian airspaces determines is an additional dimension in the engagement rules. The maximum range of the surface- to -surface missiles which are owned by Israel and which do not belong to the ballistic missiles and which their usage alone can agitate a warfare of missiles is sixty kilometers, it is the distance which separates between the site of launching the missiles which fell in the vicinity of Mazzeh military Airport from the hill of Abi Nada in the occupied Golan and Mazzeh Airport, it is sixty kilometers as the distance from the point where the Israeli aircrafts attacked Al Sabboura area in the southern of Damascus from inside the Lebanese airspace. Practically the message here is an Israeli offer of new engagements rules committed to the red line which was drawn by Syria by preventing the violation of the Syrian airspaces, and a military red line which is the depth of sixty kilometers along the border lines of the occupied Golan and along the Syrian Lebanese border lines. It is clear that the goals are specific for Israel to act within this range, it is everything related to the presence of the resistance on one hand and the spreading of refracting balance with Israel weapons within this range on the other hand.

The military technical strategic and tactical context of the Israeli strikes reaches to show the obvious success of Syria in drawing a red line that protects the Syrian airspaces and paves the way for the field debate through fire messages about the new rules which Israel wanted to draw. Here the right to respond which Syria and the resistance stick to can be discussed through two equations, first, by deleting any function of the Israeli aggression in the battles of the Syrian army and the resistance with the armed groups through continuing exerting pressure on these groups towards achieving the decisive victories. This has happened and now is happening in Aleppo and elsewhere. Second, it is the most important and the long term one is by drawing a fiery equation that is capable of responding to the challenge which was drawn by the Israeli strikes by devoting the inviolability of the Syrian airspaces on one hand, or to resort or at least to confine the Israeli fire to the maximum geographical margin, by drawing a deterrence equation without going to war on the other hand, this is military strategic intelligence deliberate challenge in front of the leading minds of the Syrian army and the resistance, where the test must not be subject to the timing of the Israeli movement or to the provocation of the debate under the question of where is the military response?

Surely the response is close and it is certain that its effect will be as the effect of the qualitative process of Shebaa Farms two years ago, when Israel tried to draw new engagement rules in Al Quneitra process.

A friend of mine sent me an email today with a video of John Kirby giving a press conference at the US State Department, my friend pointing out that the flag visible just behind Kirby’s left shoulder has an image of a star of David on it.

“Hmm…interesting. I never noticed that before. Do all State Department press conferences take place with the same flag in the background?” I wondered.

It turns out that all State Department videos entitled “Daily Press Briefing” do indeed show the star of David image. The person giving the briefing may change on any given day, with Kirby being replaced by either Mark Toner or Elizabeth Trudeau, but always they are standing at the same podium with the same two flags in the background–the American flag to their right and the flag with the star of David to the left.

The image on the flag is a representation of the “Great Seal of the United States.” Here is the Great Seal in full:

There can be also found slight variations on it, such as this official seal of the US State Department, but which also includes the star of David:

And there is also a “flag of the US State Department,” which appears to be the same flag in the photo with Kirby in it above:

And incredibly there is also this official seal of the 9/11 Commission:

You’ll notice that regardless of the variation, the image always has the star of David, and always the star of David appears above, with the American eagle and the America flag below it. How’s that for symbolism? And the backdrop for the star of David is blue–in some cases almost the exact shade of blue as the Israeli flag.

Perhaps also interestingly, the colors on the 9/11 seal are reduced down to blue and white only, with the other colors stripped out–though of course with the star of David still there.

So is all this just a coincidence? Perhaps. Certainly you might come away with that impression after reading Wikipedia’s article on the Great Seal. The cluster of 13 stars, referred to as a “constellation,” is supposed to represent the original 13 colonies, though why the stars are patterned into a star of David is not explained. All Wikipedia has to say on the matter is as follows:

Over its [the eagle’s] head there appears a “glory” with 13 mullets(stars) on a blue field. In the current (and several previous) dies of the great seal, the 13 stars above the eagle are arranged in rows of 1-4-3-4-1, forming a six-pointed star.

The “glory” above the eagle’s head and surrounding the 13 stars is supposed to represent an iconic “saint’s halo.” Ironic, isn’t it? That the symbol for an apartheid state, whose treatment of the Palestinians probably meets the legal definition of genocide, would be enclosed in a halo.

My friend comments as follows:

The intent to deceive is in pretending that the star of David is simply “a constellation of 13 stars” (the 13 colonies)– curious how of all the shapes they could have been represented in they happened to “fall” into this one. Why not this one:

****­**********

All of this might cause us to view the following video in an entirely new light:

Why was John Kirby falsely accusing Russia of bombing hospitals? Whose interest would be served if a war were to break out between the US and Russia?

Perhaps this post will cause some Americans to rethink their long-held beliefs that we live in our own independent and free country. Please share it far and wide.

For anyone still wondering what the war in Syria is all about, we refer you to this “juxtaposition” chart created by Nassim Taleb.

We would note that such a chart should be required reading for all America and Europe…so share it wide and far.

Juxtaposition. The way to analyze the situation is to look at the factions comparatively.You do not compare Assad’s regime to the Danish or Norwegian governments, but to the alternative. The question becomes if there is anything in the left column that is worse than the right column?

In the end I never imagined seeing the “left” siding with the Al Qaeda of Sept 11, mourning the fighters of Aleppo and, aside from such independent journalists as Robert Fisk, spreading all manner of concoctions.

Note 1. Assad father’s operatives blew up my house in Amioun when my grandfather, then MP, voted for Bashir. In Skin in the Game I discuss this as “acting against one’s interest” (the opposite of conflict of interest). So as a scientist and a humanist, I have been setting my grudge aside in considering the far, far, far, greater cancer of Salafism or Islamofascism.

Note 2. Recall that I am a statistician. When I took a look at the statistics of the conflicts, most appear to be fabrications inflated by Qatari-funded think tanks and their useful idiots — by a mechanism the Indians call “Salma told Sabrina”. For instance, we know that Hama’s toll was not the 30–40,000 people report but the only real evidence is closer to 2,000.

Note 3. One may ask: are the “rebels” all theocratic Salafis? No, but the groups became progressively so by the minority rule: you put a single Salafi in a group of five, and the five behave as Salafis. This, aside from Wahabi funding.

Note 4. Counter-insurgencies (Army vs insurgents/terrorists, etc.) command a much higher rate of civilian casualties regardless of whether the army belongs to a liberal democracy or an autocracy.

Note 5. One may ask: are all people who are mourning the defeat of the rebels in Aleppo that stupid, so gullible to the think tank operators? My answer, alas, is yes. And it takes some financial and intellectual independence and a great deal of integrity to analyze matters outside the main narrative as think tankers jump on you like flies.

Friday, 16 December 2016

For years I have argued that Jewish power is the power to silence criticism of Jewish Power. Now, UK Prime Minister Theresa May has confirmed that my observation is spot on.

PM May has decided to accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and to integrate it into British law.

According to the IHRA, “antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Pretty lazy definition I’d say. Substitute the word ‘antisemitism’ with ‘bigotry’ and the word ‘Jews’ with ‘one people’ and you end up with a reasonably good definition of hatred itself. But our Theresa thinks Jews deserve special protection. And why? Because although in Britain, as in the USA, Germany and France everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, Jews are somehow more equal than others.

Sir Eric Pickles, government envoy for ‘post-Holocaust issue’s, is also committed to the Jews and the primacy of their suffering, so much so that he has morphed into a giant gefilte fish. As Pickles told the BBC, the new definition “catches up with modern antisemitism”. It was, he said, “important not to conflate Jewish people with Israel.”

I couldn’t agree more. We should never conflate Jews with Israel. First, Jews are wonderfully, innocent, peace loving people – except perhaps the 14 million or so of them who support Israel and give the entire tribe a bad name – and second, it would be an absurd to ignore the five or so Jews who oppose Israel and truly support Palestine. Maybe Pickles should use his position and influence to lobby the Israeli government to stop defining Israel as the “Jewish state” – now, wouldn’t that stop people conflating the Jews with their state!

According to the IHRA, antisemitism can include denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination. Again, I couldn’t agree more. Since Britain supported the rise of ISIS and armed its battalions, it’s only fair that it should also support the Jews-only state. And it’s never too late for Britain to admit that maybe an Aryan-only State is also a pretty kosher idea. And what about a White state? Do white people not also have the right to self-determination? I think we should be told.

Nor should it surprise us that man-of principle Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour Party rushed to back May’s move. After all, who more than that ‘man of the people’ Jeremy Corbyn would understand the need of British workers to attach themselves to Jewish sensitivities?

The Jewish Chronicle was kind enough to list the names of the Jewish leaders that congratulated the move. For example, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis saluted the Prime Minister for her commitment to tackling the scourge of anti-Semitism and Jonathan Arkush, Board of Deputies president also welcomed the government decision. I wonder, is there not one Jewish leader who can see that such a move, one that makes Jews special in the eyes of the law, is a recipe for disaster? Does any Jewish leader really believe such a law will make British Jews loved or respected?

Jewish history actually proves the opposite. It is always Jewish exceptionalism that evolves into Jewish disaster.

Dr. Isabel Apawo Phiri, a renowned African Christian theologian and associate general secretary of the World Council of Churches, was denied entry to Israel earlier this month.

According to the Electronic Intifada, Phiri and other WCC members were traveling to Occupied Palestine to attend a meeting of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel, or EAPPI. Of the group, Phiri alone was denied entry and forced to leave the country. The reason cited by Israeli authorities was her “pro-BDS activities,” according to The Guardian in a story that quotes two Israeli officials, Interior Minister Aryeh Deri and Gilad Erdan, Minister of Public Security.

“The place of the boycotters is outside the country’s borders and we shall continue to do everything possible to prevent them from entering our country,” Erdan is quoted as saying.

A native of Malawi, Phiri holds a masters degree in religious education from the University of Lancaster in England, and a PhD in religious studies from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Prior to her appointment to the WCC, she was a professor of African Theology and dean of the School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics and director at the Centre for Constructive Theology at the University of KwaZulu Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. She has also served as editor of the Journal of Gender and Religion in Africa, and you can go here to access a short video of her discussing violence against women.

A statement put out by the WCC says Phiri was “apprehended, interrogated and deported from Ben Gurion International Airport.” She was reportedly the only African member of the delegation–and the only one denied entry to Israel–a fact which led WCC General Secretary Olav Fykse Tveit to suggest that racism may have been a motivation in the decision. Tveit described the decision to block her from the country as “patently unjust and discriminatory.”

“The singling out of Apawo Phiri fits in with Israel’s racism against Africans,” a statement on Phiri’s detention posted on the BDS South Africa website reads in part. The organization adds:

The human rights and Palestine solidarity organization BDS South Africa joins the WCC in condemning the Israeli Government’s denial of entry to Dr Isabela Apawo Phiri and those wanting to visit the Palestinian territories (including the holy towns of Bethlehem and Jerusalem). We join the National Coalition 4 Palestine (NC4P) in demanding that the South African Government investigates the issue of South Africans, particularly church members, being denied entry to Palestine.

In the last two years alone more than 15 South Africans have been deported by Israel. In the past Israel has also denied Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Higher Education Minister Dr Blade Nzimande, Minister Thulas Nxesi and various other high profile South Africans entry into Palestine.

The EAPPI is a program coordinated by the WCC whose mission is “to witness life under occupation, engage with local Palestinians and Israelis pursuing a just peace, [and] to change the international community’s involvement in the conflict, urging them to act against injustice in the region.”

“Granting an entry permit to activists such as Phiri would in effect reinforce the wrongful activities she and her peers are advancing and I have no intention of lending a hand to that,” Interior Minister Deri said in a statement to the media. “I will use any authority at my disposal to avert harm to Israel.”

The Guardian noted that the decision by Israel to bar Phiri from the country is “likely to be controversial because of her profile.”